Pro-democracy group New Macau Association (ANM) has urged the security branch of the government to either shelve facial recognition technology in surveillance cameras or review the law to better supervise the practice. The group articulated their stance yesterday at a press conference.
The Secretary for Security, Wong Sio Chak, had earlier announced that facial recognition would be tested on existing surveillance cameras early next year. Following several “exchanges of comments,” Wong has recently said that his team “only consulted the Personal Data Protection Office out of respect,” stressing that the facial recognition function did not require consultation with the data protection authority.
Furthermore, Wong maintains that the function of facial recognition is not governed by the existing surveillance camera law.
However, the ANM has found Wong’s explanation worrying, stating that “the government’s statement not only [failed to alleviate] their doubts, but it also created more grounds for opposition.”
The current surveillance camera law has special provisions for the collection and processing of a video feed. The democrat group stressed that there is no legal grounds for the security branch to process video footage at its own unrestricted liberty.
To clarify the point, New Macau pointed out that the police are expressly authorized to use the license plate recognition system, but there are no provisions authorizing the police to use facial recognition to process the collected videos.
It also recalled that the legislature had made notes on the scope of coverage of the law. Subsequently, the use of facial recognition is not allowed, argued the ANM.
The ANM elaborated that, currently, the handling of video footage by a police investigator must be in accordance with the law. It sees the necessity for similar regulations if such footage is handled by a computer system.
There has also been speculation that a database of facial characteristics may be needed to facilitate the function. The ANM finds this equally concerning because even if the footage gets deleted in accordance with the law, it is not clear whether the security branch will retain certain data in their possession.
The fashion in which the security branch releases information related to facial recognition function is also of concern to New Macau. Its gradual release of a small amount of information each time poses a bad example, so says the organization.
All in all, although the group is very much against the use of facial recognition function on public surveillance cameras, it is urging the security branch to either amend the current surveillance camera law or make new laws to clearly stipulate the scope of the function. This they perceive as a way to protect the interests of the general public.
No Comments